Talk:Axis powers/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

To-do box

I have added a to-do box so that we can list the things we agree need to be done. That way I hope we can move forward with the things that we all agree should be done. MartinDK 11:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark was definitely not an Allied Power -- it did not oppose the German invasion, declare war on Germany or form a government-in-exile after it was occupied. At the same time, it was not an Axis Power either.

I have made an attempt at a factual, non-POV description of Denmark's role during the war. From 1940 to 1943, Denmark collaborated, afterward, it resisted. Please share comments or corrections of any facts I have stated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garamundi (talk • contribs).

In Response to the Above

Your insertion, quite frankly, is a massive political distortion which comes nowhere near understanding the position of Denmark under German occupation. You are clearly working to some kind of perverse agenda; I am not yet sure what it is. White Guard 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again there has been an attempt to introduce some astonishing distortions concerning the history of Denmark in the Second World War, by the same user. I think we are now getting to the stage where these unsupported and highly biased edits must be considered as vandalism. White Guard 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For a third time I have tried to edit out a perverse insertion about the status of Denmark during the Nazi occupation. The view of the user in question demonstrates an abysmal misunderstanding and distortion of both fact and perception. A view like this, with no support whatsoever, in document or in simple good sense, cannot be allowed to stand; but he is clearly determined to push it at all hazards. I personally have reached the limits of my own intellectual tolerance and have no intention of engagiing in any form of debate, which shows every sign of futility and frustration at the ouset. White Guard 01:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In Response to Response

You are the one distorting history. There is not a single factual inaccuracy in the article you keep vandalizing by deletion. The article does not state a point of view, it only cites facts.

I challenge you to dispute a single fact.

True or false, King Christian X accepted the German ultimatum concerning "protection of the Reich."

True or false, Germany occupied Denmark without resistance.

True or false, Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact and broke diplomatic relations with Germany's enemies.

True or false, Denmark authorized formation of the Danish Free Corps to fight on the Eastern Front.

True or false, 4,000 Danes enlisted in the Danish Free Corps, including many soldiers of the Royal Danish Army.

This is an article about the Axis Powers with a section on Axis collaborator regimes. What exactly is Denmark if not an Axis collaborator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Garamundi (talk • contribs).

Was Denmark invaded? Yes. Is it an Axis power? No. What is with these revisionists altering this board? I guess the next nation to be included with the Axis is the UK since part of it was occupied, and Britons served in the SS. TchussBitc 03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

a) The King has no political power so he didn't accept anything

b) there was indeed resistance on the morningof the invasion but given the fact that Germany threatened to bomb Copenhagen to pieces surrender was the only option

c) Free Corps Denmark was not authorized by the government. It was setup by the Germans

d) The vast vast majority of the traitors who signed up were not soldiers

I don't have more time this morning but I will expand on this when I get home from work. MartinDK 04:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Misinformation

a) King Christian X was the Danish head of state, but the decision to accept "protection of the Reich" was not his decision alone. The head of government, Prime Minister Thorvald Stauning, concurred in the decision, as did Stauning's successors as Prime Minister during the so-called protectorate period.

b) By the time most Danes woke up, the King and government had accepted the ultimatum and surrendered the army.

c) The Free Corps Denmark was authorized by the Danish government on June 28, 1941 and recruitment began on July 8, 1941. See sources:

http://www.milhist.dk/besattelsen/frikorps/frikorps.html

http://axis101.bizland.com/DanishFeldpost.htm

d) The Free Corps Denmark was authorized by the Danish government and open only to members of the Danish Royal Army and those who had completed their service within the last ten years. The first commander of the Free Corps Denmark was a Danish colonel who did not belong to the Danish Nazi Party.

Danes who collaborated with the Nazis after 1943 may have been traitors, but those who collaborated from 1940 to 1943 did so with government sanction under the policy of "Samarbejdspolitik," meaning "cooperation policy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garamundi (talk • contribs)

First of all sign your posts. Second you are in violation of the 3-revert-rule and will be reported and blocked if you keep this up. I will not tolerate this and will do my utmost to make sure you become blocked. You have been warned.

Second, the revisionist view you present here is not what is commonly believed to be the truth among historians who actually know what they are talking about. It is motivated by your political POV. I will deal with each of your comments below. MartinDK 16:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the page and reverted your vandalism. Now let me reply to your statements.

With regard to your claim that Denmark surrendered without a fight and willingly decided to co-operate with the Germans see my earlier statement on this above.

Frikorps Danmark was created to please German wishes. It was not official policy that Danes should fight for the Germans and anyone, even if they joined before 1943, were prosecuted after the war. So yes, they were traitors and regarded by the Danish people and loyal members of the government as such. Frikorps Danmark is widely regarded as an invention of the Danish Nazis and Germans even if the government due to its forced collaboration with the Germans had to officially sanction it. Its influence on the war equals zero. It was a complete waste and its members are to this date regarded as traitors and collaborators.

The king has no power in a constitutional monarchy. Bringing the king of all people into this shows your complete lack of knowledge in this regard. MartinDK 16:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Full protection has now been requested. Also, I am suspecting you of being a sock puppet of Grungoria (same writing style, only contribs are to this page, you started after Grungoria ended his edits...). If you keep this up I will have you blocked for both breaking the 3RR and creating sock puppets. MartinDK 17:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the above comments I would like to point out that given the fact that there was (and still is) a military draft in Denmark it was not exactly a very limiting requirement that people should have completed their military training within the past 10 years to join. The number of people with military training at the time far exceeded the number of actual soldiers. MartinDK 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Detailed reply to the five questions

(after edit conflict). Just to chip in a little here: I noticed the five comments and fortunately a very detailed study of Danish foreign policy was recently published. I'll almost exclusively stick to this in this post. I believe the questions were:

• Question 1: True or false, King Christian X accepted the German ultimatum concerning "protection of the Reich."
• Question 2: True or false, Germany occupied Denmark without resistance.
• Question 3: True or false, Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact and broke diplomatic relations with Germany's enemies.
• Question 4: True or false, Denmark authorized formation of the Danish Free Corps to fight on the Eastern Front.
• Question 5: True or false, 4,000 Danes enlisted in the Danish Free Corps, including many soldiers of the Royal Danish Army.

• Answer 1: True, but the question is misleading. Prime Minister Stauning, Foreign Minister Munch, Defence Minister Andersen, Army Chief leut.general Prior and Navy Chief Admiral Rechnitzer met with King Christian X and Crown Prince Frederick at 5:30 AM in the morning of 9 April 1940 (while shooting was taking place outside of the royal palace and bombers flew over the city). The general argued that Denmark should fight to the end and that the king should try to flee from the city. The king refused to leave the city, and Munch, Andersen and Rechnitzer recommended to stop the fighting immediately. Everybody else agreed. The rationale was that further fighting would only result in the loss of countless Danish lives since Denmark couldn't possibly win a fight with Germany and Renthe-Fink had stated that all 13 demands must be agreed to (naturally hinting at the bombers flying over Copenhagen). The King and cabinet decided to avoid a policy that would mean countless civilian deaths in a virtually undefended Copenhagen. The military HQ Kastellet had been almost undefended and the guard there had already been overpowered by the Germans. I also doubt that anybody had guessed that Denmark would become the object of the world's first combined land, sea and air assault. The German ultimatum on the morning of 9 April had contained a number of promises about respecting Danish sovereignty and Munch repeated them in his official reply in an attempt to make the Germans stick to their word: "German troops have not entered Danish territory with hostile intentions and the German government does not intent to question the territorial integrity and politicial independence of the Kingdom of Denmark, not now and not in the future". The Danish cabinet took the gamble that Germany would honour its own words and acted accordingly. (Bo Lidegaard (ed.) (2003): Dansk Udenrigspolitiks historie [The History of Danish Foreign Policy], vol. 4, most importantly pp. 391-8)

• Answer 2: False. Ask that question to the Danes that died defending e.g. the Royal Palace and Haderslev, just to name the two best known scenes of fighting. I can recommend the memoirs of Colonel Lunding for a pretty detailled description.

• Answer 3: First part true but more complex than it seems. Second part mostly false. On 20 November '41 the Danish government received a German "invitation" to join the Anti-Comintern pact. Finland accepted reluctantly on 25 November and stated that it presumed that Denmark also attended the ceremony (effectively conditioning its own attendence). Erik Scavenius argued that Denmark should sign the pact but the Cabinet ministers refused stating that this would violate the policy of neutrality (ibid. p. 475). Scavenius reported this decision to Renthe-Fink. Fink replied on 21 November that "Germany would be unable to comprehend" a Danish rejection and demanded this decision be reversed before the end of the day. He assuered Scavenius that the pact cotained neither "political or other obligations" (i.e. going to war with the USSR). On a cabinet meeting the same day, it was suggested to seek a written confirmation of this promise in an addendum to the protocol. Stauning agreed on these terms since it would effectively make the signing meaningless. The Danish foreign office drew up a list of four terms that stated that Denmark only committed itself to "police action" in Denmark and that the nation remained neutral. The German foreign ministry agreed to the terms provided that the protocol was not made public (which was the intent of the Danish foreign ministry). As Berlin grew tired of waiting, von Ribbentrop called Copenhagen on 23 November threatening with "cancelling the peaceful occupation" unless Denmark complied. On 23 November, Wehrmacht in Denmark was put on alert and Renthe-Fink met Stauning and Foreign Minister P. Munch at 10 AM stating that there would be no room for parliamentary excuses. It the German demands were not met Germany will no longer be committed by the promises given on 9 April 1940" (= the threat of a state of war, a Nazi government and territorial dismemberment). In a Cabinet meeting at 2 PM that day, Stauning, Scavenius, Munch, Gunnar Larsen + 1 minor minister advocated accession. 7 ministers opposed. In a meeting the same day in the Nine Man committe, three move ministers caved in most notably Vilhelm Buhl stating "Coorporation is the last shred of our defence". To quote from Prime Minister Stauning's notes (Lidegaard, p. 476-7) The objective is a political positioning. But this was established by the occupation. The danger of saying no - - I would not like to see a Terboven here. Sign with addendum - - that modifies the pact.

Scavernius borded a train and headed for Berlin where he arrived on Monday 24 November. The next crisis came when he was met by Renthe-Fink who informed him that Ribbentrop had informed Fink that there had been a "misunderstanding" regarding the four clauses and that clause 2 would be deleted. This had specified that Denmark only had police-like obligations. Scavenius had a strict mandate not to change a sentence and stated that he would be unable to return to Copenhagen with a different content from the one agreed upon, but that he was willing to reopen negotiations to clarify the matter futher. This reply enraged Ribbentrop (and rumours claim that he was considering ordering the SS to arrest Scavenius). The task fell to German diplomat von Weizsäcker to patch up a compromise. He watered down the wording but left the content pretty intact, but for Scavenius it was a strong setback that the four clauses would now only get the status of a unilateral Danish declaration ("Aktennotitz") with a comment on it by Fink that its content "no doubt" was in compliance with the pact. Furthermore he was instructed to give a public speech while abstaining from mentioning the four clauses but only making general statements about Denmark's status as a neutral nation. Scavenius signed the pact. At the following reception the Italian ambassador described Scavenius as "a fish dragged on land ... a small old gentleman in a suit asking himself how on earth he got to this place". Lidegaard comments that the old man remained defiant: during a conversation with Ribbentrop in which the latter complained about the "barbarous cannibalism" of Russian POWs, Scavenius rhetorically asked if that statement meant that Germany didn't feed her prisoners. (ibid. p. 479)

When news of the signing reached Denmark it left the population outraged, and rumors immediately spread about what Denmark had now committed itself to. The cabinet sent a car to pick up Scavernius at the ferry, to avoid him riding the train alone to Copenhagen. At the same time a large demonstration gathered outside of Parliament (this led the Minister of Justice to remark that he didn't like to see Danish police beating up students singing patriotic songs). When Scavenius had returned to Copenhagen, he asked the cabinet to debate once and for all where the red lines existed in the Danish relations with Germany. This debate concluded that three red lines existed: 1) No legislation discriminating Jews, 2) Denmark should never join the Axis Pact between Germany, Italy and Japan, 3) No unit of the Danish army should ever fight against foreign forces. To the surprise of many, Scavenius accepted these instructions without hesitation. (the source of these paragraphs is "Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Historie" vol. IV, pp. 474 - 483.)

Regarding the ambassadors: Germany demanded that Denmark withdrew its ambassador from Moscow (Laurits Bolt-Jørgensen) at the outbreak of war with the USSR and he was recalled. It has nothing to do with the Anti-Comintern Pact. In September 1944, a number of leading Danish politicians contacted London (without consulting the Danish Freedom Council) and asked for its help in restoring relations to the USSR. London insisted that the Danish Freedom Council should be included but the initiative failed; the USSR insisted on only talking with Thomas Døssing (representing the Danish Freedom Coucil) who had already arrived in Moscow. Most of the other diplomats remained in place throughout the war:

• Washington: Henrik Kauffmann remained on his post but had announced when hearing of the occupation that he would not accept orders from the government of an occupied nation. (ibid., page 405-6) This status was not recognized by the U.S. at first, so effectively Kauffmann was the one trying to sever relations between the U.S. and Denmark.
• London: Eduard Reventlow remained on his post 1938-53. He was in doubt regarding his loyalties in 1940 but stayed loyal to the government. He later sided with Henrik Kauffmann and joined the Danish Council in London in 1942 (ibid. p. 407 and 484)
• Paris: Herman Anker Bernhoft remained on his post (1939-45)

Full diplomatic relations were maintained with Berlin, Oslo, and Stockholm. I have no information specifically but no reason to doubt that Rome falls into the same category.

• Answer 4: False, Answer 5: Partly true, partly false. (I'll treat them as a unit since the questions are related): According to Danish law, it was not illegal to join a foreign army but active recruiting on Danish soil was illegal. The SS disregarded this law and began recruiting efforts - predominantly recruiting Danish Nazis and members of the German minority. (ibid. p. 461). The Danish government found out and concentrated on persuading the Germans not to recruit underage boys. The Frikorps Danmark was set up at the initiative of the SS and DNSAP who approached Lieutenant-Colonel C.P. Kryssing shortly after the invasion of the USSR had begun. The Nazi paper Fædrelandet proclaimed the creation of the corps on 29 June 1941 (ibid., p. 461). General Prior wanted to sack Kryssing and his designated second-in-command but decided to consult the Cabinet. It agreed that Kryssing should be sacked in its meeting on 2 July 1941, but this decision was later withdrawn when Eric Scavenius - who had not attended the original meeting - returned from negotiations and announced that he had reached an agreement with Renthe-Fink that soldiers wishing to join this corps could be given leave until further notice. The government issued an announcement stating that "Lieut.Colonel C.P. Kryssing, Chief of the 5th Artillery reg., Holbæk, has with the consent of the Royal Danish Government assumed command over 'Frikorps Danmark'". The point is that the Danish text only explicitly says that the government recognizes that Kryssing had been given a new command, it does not sanction the creation of the corps which had already happend without consulting the government (ibid. p. 462-3). The government later instructed that the army and navy were not allowed to obstruct applications from soldiers wishing to leave active duty and join the corps. In 1941, Kryssing held a 7 minute long speech in the radio, in 1942 Schalburg held a three minute long speech and in 1943 the third commander held a speech of similar length. (p. 462-3). The Danish cabinet was, however, represented at the funeral of the corp's second commander, von Schalburg, in 1942. A 1998 study showed that the average recruit to Frikorps Danmark was a Nazi and / or a member of the German minority in Denmark and that recruitment was very broad socially. (p. 463). Army experience was far from a given thing, and new recruits underwent a German recruit training (more details in Under Hagekors og Dannebrog, 1999). I don't have the book at hand but - of all sources in the world - the webpage of the Danish Nazis actually quote this book saying that a total of 77 Danish officers had joined between June 41 and July 43. ([1]) Just in case everybody wondered, I was googling for reviews of this book. In July 1941 Heinrich Himmler complained that Denmark was unofficially trying to stop recruitment since the word ran in the army that anyone joining would be committing treason. A rumor also existed that King Christian X had commented to an officer "I understand that you wish to join Frikorps Danmark. If you do, I shall no longer require your services. I consider it to be treason if a Danish officer joins Frikorps Danmark." Bo Lidegaard notes: "The relationship between the population and the corps was freezing cold, and legionaires on leave time and again came into fights with civilians meeting the corps' volunteers with massive contempt." (Lidegaard, p. 464). Regarding the number of troops, I don't have a copy of the relevant book at hand. Lidegaard gives the following figures for 1941: 6,000 Danish citizens had signed up to German army duty (1,500 of these belonged to the German minority in Denmark). He compares this number to 3,000 Norwegians and 30,000 Dutchmen doing the same.) Under Hagekors og Dannebrog documents that many recruits for Frikorps Danmark had never received any military training.

All in all, the situation is a lot more complex than the one you describe. Denmark was a nation occupied by a foreign power which recognized (on paper) that Denmark remained a neutral nation whose domestic affairs and foreign policy had been unaffected by the outbreak of war. At the same time, Danish politicians made a strong attempt not to grant Germany more concessions than absolutely necessary while also making sure that Denmark never crossed the "red line" joining the Axis. The Danish government considered Denmark to be a neutral and democratic nation and it tried to defend this situation for as long as possible. The majority of Danes drew the line more sharply and blamed the government for granting too many concessions. In Moscow, the view was that Denmark should make a clean break and declare war on Germany. In Berlin, opinion about maintaining the Danish situation were divided. In London, the government concluded that it was preferably to have Denmark lead its policy of collaboration since the alternative was the country falling under complete German control. The U.S. reached the same conclusion around 1943-44. (ibid. pp. 625-9). The Danish government continued to deny recognizing the German notion that Germany held the right to rule in Denmark "by right of conquest", and neither the cabinet nor the average Dane sold his soul to Hitler. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I think that should settle the dispute once and for all. Can I possibly tempt you to frequent this page more often as you seem very well informed about these things? We have tried to ask for help on the taskforce page but no one ever replied. We could really use more contributers like you! MartinDK 19:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact the situation before August, 1943 and after differs and possibly there was a war declaration from German side in August. See discussion in Talk:Occupation of Denmark/Archive 1#Declaration of war against Germany? for more detailed view.--Nixer 20:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The German ultimatum of 28 August '43? It could very well be true, but alas, I have never seen a copy of the original text. I would certainly love to see it though. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there was ever an actual declaration of war. As far as I know Denmark remained under the control of the German Foreign Office even after 1943 - which I doubt would be the case if there had been an actual declaration of war. But I might be wrong about that. But the dispute here is not really if Denmark was an ally or not - we all know that Denmark as a state didn't actively fight the Germans except on the morning of the occupation. So in that respect Denmark was not an ally as such. The dispute here has been about Denmark being included in this article and I think it should be obvious to everyone by now that Denmark does indeed not belong here. As for Denmark being an ally or a country struggling to remain neutral I think that question is much more complex. MartinDK 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to detailed reply

Valentinian,

Thank you for your reasoned reply to my questions, unlike the belligerent vandalism of WhiteGuard and DKMartin.

To summarize, you agree with my statement that the King and Cabinet accepted the German ultimatum offering "protection of the Reich." You make the point that this acceptance was given because they concluded that Denmark was in no position to successfully prevent German occupation. I agree with your point, but the fact remains that the King and Cabinet accepted Reich protection.

You disagree with my statement that Denmark did not resist German invasion. I will agree that in the one hour it took the King and Cabinet to accept "Reich protection" sporadic gunfire was exchanged between Danish and German forces, but this gunfire resulted in 13 Danish casualties and no German casualties. Contrast those 13 casualties with the 3,900 casualties suffered by Danish forces fighting for Germany.

You agree with my statement that Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact.

You "partly agree" with my statement that Denmark broke diplomatic relations with Germany's enemies, saying that Danish diplomats remained in the United States and Great Britain. I will agree that Danish diplomats remained in the United States and Denmark but refused to take orders from the Danish protectorate government. Denmark broke relations with Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands, all of which were fighting Germany as governments-in-exile, on July 15, 1940. Denmark broke relations with the Soviet Union on June 27, 1941, five days after the German invasion of that country.

You say that you disagree that the Danish government authorized formation of the Denmark Free Corps, stating that the Danish government gave its authorization only after the Corps had been formed by the German SS at the request of Danish Nazis. I am not sure how to respond to your "disagreement" when you have acknowledged that the Denmark Free Corps operated with approval from the Danish government. In fact, you specifically concede that the Danish government authorized Colonel C.P. Kryssing of the Royal Danish Army to take command of this unit and instructed the Royal Danish Army to permit recruitment of Denmark Free Corps members from its ranks. You also state that the Danish cabinet was represented at the funeral of the second commander of the Denmark Free Corps.

You disagree with my statement that "4,000 Danes, including many officers of the Royal Danish Army," joined the Denmark Free Corps but only because the numbers are too low. You estimate that 6,000 Danes joined the Denmark Free Corps, including 77 officers of the Royal Danish Army.

I refer you to these public sources of information concerning the Denmark Free Corps: http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1181 http://www.milhist.dk/besattelsen/frikorps/frikorps.html

AGREED: In the early morning hours of April 9, 1940, the King and Cabinet of Denmark reluctantly accepted a German ultimatum offering "protection of the Reich."

AGREED: In the one hour it took for the King and Cabinet to accept the German ultimatum, German and Danish forces exchanged gunfire which resulted in 13 Danish casualties. Otherwise, Denmark was occupied without resistance.

AGREED: Denmark authorized Colonel C.P. Kryssing of the Royal Danish Army to assume command of the Denmark Free Corps and instructed the Royal Danish Army to permit the recruitment of Denmark Free Corps members from among the officers and enlisted men of the Royal Danish Army.

AGREED: Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941.

AGREED: Denmark broke diplomatic relations with the governments-in-exile of Norway, Belgium and Netherlands which refused to peacefully accept German occupation. Denmark also broke relations with the Soviet Union after the Germany invasion of that country. Danish diplomats remained in Britain and the United States but refused to accept orders from the collaborationist "protectorate government."

I ask you to please review the disputed article describing the "protectorate government" of Denmark. Please note that the article does not describe the Danish protectorate government as a member of the Axis but as a collaborator in the same category as the Vichy French regime. I realize that these are sensitive matters of national pride. Most Frenchmen consider France to have been an Allied Power, but the Vichy regime is properly classified as an Axis collaborator. The same is true of the "protectorate government" of Denmark.

Thank you again for your reasoned reply.

Garamundi—Preceding unsigned comment added by Garamundi (talk • contribs)

I see you are back from your 24 hour ban. Belligerent vandalism ? Did I break the 3RR rule and get blocked? No. Am I the one using sockpuppets and not properly signing my posts? No. Am I the one who got the page fully protected to keep you from posting nonsense which is regarded as vandalism? Yes I am. I have no intentions of giving up and if you continue to act in this manner, breaking the 3RR and not refraining from personal attacks against me and White Guard I will have you blocked again. There is a clear and total majority of editors in here who do not agree with you so you should accept and respect that rather than continue to make edits that have been disapproved of on this talk page. MartinDK 21:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Some facts should be pointed.

• 28 August, 1943 Germany issued a new ultimatum, demanding Danes to invent death penalty for sabotage.
• Danish government refused.
• Germans attacked Danish military
• Danish army was ordered not to resist (other than for self-defence), but destroy weapons. A part of ships were ordered to flee to Sweden, others - to be sinked.
• In spite of this order there was some fighting on 29 August. Danish casualties constituted 24 killed, 50 wounded. German - 4 killed, 59 wounded.
• Some Danish military surrendered hoping they would be considered POWs.
• Germans arrested all members of Danish police and some other military. They were moved to German KZs.
• Danish government ceased to perform their work.

--Nixer 21:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AGREED: The collaborationist "protectorate government" of Denmark came to an end in 1943 when the Germany military arrested the king, dissolved civil government and imposed martial law.

These facts were in the article that WhiteGuard and DKMartin, probably sock puppets for each other, keep vandalizing by deletion.

The Danish protectorate government of 1940 to 1943 was an Axis collaborator, just like the Vichy French government of 1940 to 1943. DKMartin, who is apparently Danish, wants to omit any mention of his country's collaboration with the Axis. Understandable, but this an an encyclopedia of facts.

Thank you, Nixer, for your reasoned and factual response, not the irrational vandalism of sock puppets WhiteGuard and DKMartin.

--Garamundi

You just don't get it do you? I hope you will enjoy your next block Garamundi because it is going to be permanent. I am not trying to omit anything nor am I a sockpuppet. I wish I could say the same for you but unfortunately that does not seem to be the case. I have no further comments to your statements, everything that needs to be said on this subject has been said above. Respect the majority in here and stop making personal attacks or prepare to be blocked again. MartinDK 22:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been lurking and observing. Consider me a neutral 3rd party interested in the subject but coming in without any knowledge with respect to Denmark. After slogging through this entire talk page, I must conclude that Garamundi does make one valid (but unspoken) point: this article should have a short paragraph about Denmark. White Star and MartinDK are wrong to delete it completely; however, Garamundi is wrong to post false statements in the article. However, he seems to be making a reasonable attempt at determining which of his statements are true and false. Above, he proposes a list of statements that have agreement from other participants, yet MartinDK hasn't addressed those points, although he congratulated Valentinian thoroughly detailed response, implying agreement with Valentininian's assessments of what's true and what's not. The discourse has now reached a shameful level of immaturity. Grow up, children! All of you! Create a section on Denmark with statements above that you can agree are factual. Quit lashing out at each other and propose some text. THEN post it in the article instead of reverting each other. -Amatulic 06:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I have tried several times to explain my POV and so has White Guard yet he has continued to reinsert the same text that we agreed earlier shouldn't be in the article. Valentininian wrote such a detailed and enlightened response that I see no reason to repeat what he already said. Furthermore he has now made personal attacks against me on his talk page. Denmark does not belong on this page. This is not an endless list of countries that more or less co-operated. The name of this article is "Axis Powers" and even Garamundi agreed in an earlier statement that Denmark wasn't an Axis Power. So why spam the article with useless nonsense? We had a good discussion before he came here on what to to do with borderline cases like Denmark. He could have contributed to that discussion and then inserted his text about Denmark afterwards. If he would like to contribute to the article with constructive edits and throrugh discussions before changing the article as radically as he did he is more than welcome to help out. God knows we need all the people we can get here because this is a huge task due to the complexity of the subject. MartinDK 07:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Amatulic, for your reasoned reply. The original material on Denmark which MartinDK and WhiteGuard kept vandalizing consited of SIX SENTENCES, none of which were "false." The material identified Denmark as an Axis collaborator, not an Axis power. Please see the new section below entitled "Resolution of Danish edit conflict" which quotes extensively from the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Even the Danish government acknowledges that Denmark collaborated with Germany. MartinDK, a Dane, is understandably sensitive about the wartime role of his countrymen, but that does not excuse his lying, bullying and vandalism. If the Danes had shown one-tenth the spunk of MartinDK, World War II may have been a little shorter! Garamundi

MartinDK, you are correct that I stated that Denmark was not an Axis Power. It was an Axis collaborator and should be listed in the Axis collaborators section of this article along with Vichy France. I refer you to the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a more thorough understanding of Denmark's role as a collaborator. See article below entitled "Resolution of Danish edit conflict." Although the Royal Ministry itself has contradicted all of your inane claims and ridiculous protests, I am not requesting an apology. I trust you will stop abusing Wikipedia polcies. Garamundi

• I agree the Danish government between 1940 and 1943 was similar to Vichy France. The only difference was that France deported all Jews to Germany, while Denmark did not. But it is not the only German ally that did not persecute Jews.--Nixer 10:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one very important difference. Vichy did not attempt to stay neutral. Denmark did attempt to stay neutral in fact that was the whole idea behind accepting the terms given by the Germans on April 9. 1940. Vichy France atively fought the Allies, Denmark did not (despite the nonsense being inserted about Frikorps Danmark). Please see the above message from Valentinian, he really explained it in a very clear way. Now, does any of all you new people here have any ideas about how we can move forward with the article as a whole (and not just Denmark...) and would any of you be interested in digging up more sources so we can add them? They should be of academic/scholarly standard and not just private web sites. MartinDK 10:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, MartinDK. Both the Vichy French regime and the Danish protectorate government remained neutral throughout the war. Vichy France considered declaring war against Great Britain in 1940 after British naval on the French overseas fleet but decided against doing so. Both Vichy France and Denmark were economic and political collaborators. Neither France nor Denmark signed the Tripartite Pact but both signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. Spain, too, should be listed as an Axis collaborator. Kindly familiarize yourself with the subject before making factually incorrect statements. Garamundi

Resolution of Danish edit conflict

In an effort to resolve the edit conflict over whether or not Denmark is properly classified as an Axis collaborator, I consulted the official website of the Royal Danish Ministry of Foregin Affairs. The Ministry has heplfully published an official government paper describing the occupation of Denmark which resolves all conflicts. I refer everyone to read the paper in full:

http://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap6/6-15.asp

In describing Denmark's relationship with Germany, the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs uses the phrase "policy of collaboration" at least six separate times and the words "co-operation" or "close co-operation" just as many.

According to the Royal Ministry, the official government policy of collaboration began on April 9, 1940 with the "peaceful occupation" of the country by Germany and continued as goverment policy until August 29, 1943 when Germany declared martial law. The paper further states that "collaboration continued on an administrative level" even after the imposition of martial law. As for the Danish Resistance movement, the Royal Ministry states that Britain urged resistance as early as 1941 but that even as late as 1942 "there was still very little public support for the Resistance movement."

The Royal Ministry also acknowledges that Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Hitler and that the Danish government itself authorized formation of the Danmark Frikorps to fight as a unit of the Wehrmacht, despite repeated denials by MartinDK and WhiteGuard. The Royal Ministry even concedes that at times "German orders were complied with much more thoroughly than was demanded." The Royal Ministry also provides additional details concerning Denmark's collaboration with Germany, including its role as a supplier and banker to the Nazis.

Several passges are excerpted below, but PLEASE read the entire article. The article is an official paper of the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and resolves all edit disputes.

With respect to the German occupation, I refer you to the first paragraph of the paper:

German troops occupied Denmark within a few hours on the morning of 9 April 1940. The attack was accompanied by an ultimatum that no resistance was to be offered. Germany would, in exchange, respect the country's political independence; the King and the government gave in. Thus began a "peaceful occupation" during which Denmark tried to maintain the illusion of independence

With respect to Denmark's role as supplier and banker to Nazi Germany, I refer you to the fourth paragraph of the section entitled "Political and Economic Co-operation," excerpted below in bold:

By the end of the occupation, the trade with Germany had produced an export surplus of approximately 3 billion kroner, boosting purchasing power in the Danish society. The German military's construction projects, such as the landing strips and the fortifications built on the west coast of Jutland, cost approximately 5 billion kroner and were financed by outlays from Nationalbanken, Denmark's central bank.

With respect to the the formation of Danmark Frikorps and the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact, I refer you to the seventh paragraph of the section entitled "Political and Economic Co-operation," reproduced in bold below:

The government also accepted German demands to create a military corps, known as Frikorps Danmark, which was to fight with the Germans against Bolshevism and to sign the Anti-Comintern Pact.

I will shortly post the Wikipedia material that MartinDK and WhiteGuard repeatedly vandalized by deletion. I trust this matter has now been resolved.

--Garamundi

Reply to Garamundi

(after edit conflict). Just a few points, I consider important here:

1) You ask, did the government of Denmark accept Reich "protection"? Just to be precise: it accepted to stop fighting and the Germans accepted not to interfere in Danish internal or external affairs. This did not imply joining the Axis.

2) In 1943, the Germans threatened to stop the "peaceful occupation" of Denmark and the same words were used in '41. Combined with the promises to Scavenius around 27-28 November '41, this must imply that Germany officially recognized that Denmark remained a neutral nation at peace.

3) Regarding Kryssing, he officially asked to be allowed to "step out of number" (træde udenfor nummer) in order to command the German corps (and Leut.General Prior considered this to be treason, btw.) The deal brokered between Scavenius and Renthe-Fink meant that any soldiers doing so would "step out of number", i.e. officially resign from the Danish army but the person in question would be allowed to return to it later, should he chose to wish so. The government later instructed that the army was not allowed to resist if people tried to "step out of number", but this was followed by Himmler's complaint that the Danish army indeed did obstuct the German recruitment efforts.

4) I find your comparison with Vichy France to be inaccurate. The Vichy government actively implemented e.g. Nazi racial policies, but the Danish government insisted that the Germans should stay out of Danish domestic affairs. The Germans presented the same demands to Denmark as to France. The difference is that Denmark refused them. Also, I don't believe that the Germans ever declared to stay out of French domestic affairs. The government of Vichy France had little democratic legitimacy while the Danish government was democratically elected. (Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Historie, IV, p. 497).

5) Your choice of the word "protectorate" is not particularly accurate. When speaking about WWII, people normally associate this word with Bohemia-Moravia, but this situation is clearly different than the Danish one.

6) Scavenius did sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, after he'd been assured by the Germans that this act contained no obligations.

7) Regarding the number of Frikorps Danmark and other volunteers. I don't consider 77 officers or former officers for "many". Given the size the army had had during WWI, the number of potential recruits would have been very high. Under Hagekors og Dannebrog clearly states that is was far from certain that a recruit had ever received any military training. The total number of 6,000 is a maximum number and it is controversial. Alas, I do not have a copy at hand of Under Hagekors og Dannebrog and I can't remember their calculations, only that the number is still disputed. It should, however, be noted that this number includes a disproportionately large number of ethnic Germans (can't remember the exact number, 1,500?) I believe the 3,900 Danes dying in Russia is actually 3,900 Danish citizens since the German minority in Denmark is normally not listed separately. This particular group does however muddy the picture since they (let's say it politely) held much greater loyalties to Germany than to Denmark. You mention 13 Danish dead on 9 April. Members of the Danish Resistance also died and so did Danes in Allied service. Before 9 April 1940, the Germans sunk 29 Danish ships with the loss of 360 lives in actions which only failed to be classified as acts of war, because the Danish government feverishly tried to avoid declaring war on Germany. This does not change that these people were killed by the German navy on active duty. Following 9 April '40, 240 Danish ships (2/3 of the Danish merchant navy) took active part in the convoys to England, with a total of Danish 6,000 sailors joining the Allies. Given the massive loss of 1,000 British ships, the Danish and Norwegian fleets were very important in maintaining the supply lines between the U.S. and Great Britian. Many Danes sailors died here (an estimate is somewhere between 850 and 1,000). [2] Mærsk lost more than 2/3 or its entire fleet on the Atlantic. 80 Danish ships also took part in the landing in Normandy. The number of Danes fighting in the British military has never been properly established since these people were instructed not to form national regiments. I have never heard of any historian "going through the books" looking for Danes this way. An estimate is somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 but this is nothing but a guess. The Danish Resistance also counts on the Allied side. It saw little fighting, true, because it was under stict orders from London: gather intelligence and transmit same, receive and distribute weapons, blow up trains and military installations, and wait until the British army arrives. Colonel Lunding wrote in his memoirs that Britian considered the intelligence material from Denmark to have been first-grade. He also informs that the Danish Army Intelligence also gathered and shipped a number of intelligence reports to Britian through contacts in Stockholm while working with London on implementing the Danish P-Plan which would enable the mobilization of 8,000 soldiers on a four hour notice. Lidegaard concludes that work on this plan could not have begun without a go-ahead parts the Danish government or at least parts of it (ibid. p. 489). He concludes that this list must have included Vilhelm Buhl, Hans Hedtoft and H.C. Hansen.

8) Denmark might officially have terminated contact with the governments in exile of Norway, Holland and Belgium. However, I would be very surprised if Ambassador Reventlow in London hadn't maintained informal contacts, but I must admit that I have only read reports of him from the 20s and 30s.

9) Your state that the king was arrested by the Germans and that the Germans dissolved the cabinet. Both is downright wrong. The king was never arrested and he walked around freely. The government dissolved itself.

All in all, I find the comparison with Vichy France to be inaccurate and the situation is - again - more complex when examined in detail. I have not read the paper by Aage Trommer in detail, but I noted that it is not dated, so I cannot possibly say if it he takes the material presented by Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Historie into account or not. The latter was published in 2003. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 17:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the comparison with Vichy France. Yes, in fact Germany declared to stay out Vichy France's domestic affairs, and in fact France was even more independent than Danmark because they had some unoccupied territory. Any way, Vichy France was completely occupied after all just as Danmark because Nazi promises cost nothing. Saying that the government, elected when press was censored and some parties banned was "democratically elected" is nonsence. So the only difference is the racial policy. Germans frequently broke their promises and if they wanted they could easily execute repressions on Jews. For example, Italian puppet government gave guaranties of safety to Jews of Rome, and a few days later all Jews were deported by Germans. Italian administration even issued protest against the action, but we still cannot say them were not allies of Germany.--Nixer 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the election in 1939. The Germans did not interfere in the 1943 election except that the Communists were banned. The five other parties (+ the Nazis) were all allowed to run and more than 90% voted in the election, a record never broken. You may call it what you wish, but it was very close to democratic. Btw, the word "policy of coorporation" is the literal translation of the word samarbejdspolitikken which has been used since the war. It is no surprise that Trommer uses it, everybody does. Had it been "policy of collaboration", it would have been kollaborationspolitikken but this word is not normally used. Had the Germans wanted to, they could have terminated the "experiment" in Denmark at all times. What is interesting is that the Germans resorted to complaining about Denmark not arresting / discriminating Jews, but the Germans didn't take action themselves, for the reasons I have already described. Btw, the quote is taken from the book "Danmark" which was published in 2002.[3] Aage Trommer retired in 2000 and he is not credited on the list of authors of Dansk Udenrigspolitisk Historie which was published in 2003. The latter mentions (p. 664) that important works on the subject were published in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Vichy France also complicit in supplying forced labour to Nazi germany? Petain also publically denounced the Allied powers, and tried to stir up anti-British feeling. The difference between the two is quite marked. Pétain used the occupation for his own political purposes, while Scavenius et al, resisted as much as possible in order to protect as much of the population as possible. Peregrine981 18:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again, Valentinian, for your reply. Thank you, Nixer, for your clarification, as well. Allow to respond to Valentinian:

1. I never said that Denmark joined the Axis. I stated that Denmark collaborated with the Axis. This is the same position taken by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Please see the article above. The German ultimatum offered Denmark the "protection of the Reich," ostensibly a British attack. The German ultimatum offered "political independence" in exchange for "military occupation." The King and government accepted this protection. I do not think that you and I disagree on these points.

2. Denmark was officially neutral, just as Spain and Vichy France were neutral. All three, however, collaborated to certain extents. If Denmark had declared war on the Allies, then I would argue that she should be reclassified as either a minor Axis power or Axis co-belligerent. Instead, I use the description favored by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- Axis collaborator.

3. You may be correct on the details of how Royal Danish Army officers were permitted to transfer to the Frikorps Danmark (I do not know one way or another), but you were incorrect earlier when you repeatedly stated that the Danish government never authorized formation of the Frikorps. I refer you to the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website which explicitly states that the Danish government authorized formation of the unit.

4. I agree with you that the Danish protectorate government never adopted Nazi racial legislation. This article is not about the Holocaust, it is about the Axis Powers. As for Vichy France, you are incorrect with regard to its political independence. Under the terms of the armistice, Germany only occupied 3/5 of France. The remainder, in which the resort town of Vichy was located, was left under full French control. The French government moved its seat from Paris to Vichy so as to be outside of Germany military control, but its itent was to return to the French capital of Paris as soon as the war was over. The French Parliament, a democratically elected body, met in Vichy and voted to give emergency powers to Petain as Head of State. The United States continued to recognize the Vichy regime as the lawful government of France until 1942, as did Denmark.

5. I use the term "protectorate" government because it is used in other Wikipedia articles to describe the period of time that the Royal Danish Government operated under German protection -- which was its legal status according to the terms of the German ultimatum accepted by the King and government. Also, it sounds less POV than "collaborationist" government.

6. Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. I refer you to the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. The Royal Ministry states unequivocally that Denmark signed the Anti-Comintern Pact.

7. The estimates on the number of Danes who joined the Frikorps Danmark range from 4,000 to 10,000. The original Wikipedia used the lower figure -- 4,000 -- although you state 6,000. These numbers do not include Danes who joined Waffen SS. For comparison purposes, the Royal Danish Army had a strength of 12,000 at the time of the German invasion. I hope you will admit your error in stating the Frikorps Danmark was a Nazi paramilitary organization not authorized by the Danish government. I refer you to the Royal Danish Ministry of Foregin Affairs. The Royal Ministry states unequivocally that the Danish government authorized formation of this unit.

8. All sources agree that 3,900 Danes died fighting for the Axis. Thirteen Danes died resisting the German occupation of 1940 and another 50 or so died resisting the Germans in 1943 when martial law was declared. More Danes died fighting as members of the Resistance, but even the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs condedes that the Danish Resistance enjoyed little public support until 1943.

9. For clarity, I should have stated that the King was placed under "house arrest." The King, as you probably know, suffered an injury while riding horseback in 1942, and according to its Wikipedia biography, was largely an "invalid" until his death in 1947. According to the Danish Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the administrative department heads continued to collaborate even after the imposition of martial law in 1943. To summarize, from 1940 to 1943, the Danish government was fully functioning under German protection, pursuing in the words of the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, an official government "policy of collaboration." From 1943 to 1945, Denmark was under martial law, without a civil government, and in the words of the Royal Ministry, collaborating with Germany "at the administrative level."

Valentinian, you have provided interesting and helpful details about Danish participation in the Second World War. I do not believe that you and I disagree on the broader points, especially if you will concede the position taken by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Have you read the original six sentence section about Denmark that has been repeatedly vandalized by MartinDK and his sock puppet White Guard? I will post it shortly to move forward with the new consensust that mention be made of Denmark as an Axis collaborator.

Garamundi

Garamundi... I will suggest that you read what has been written on your talk page today. You have recieved another warning from the same admin who block you on friday. Furthermore a sockpuppetering case has been started against you. I suggest you reply to the charges against you. I actually offered to make peace with you on your talk page so that we can move forward with this article but since you won't stop your personal attacks against me and White Guard I guess you can expect another block in the nearest future. I wanted to end this debate and I actually thought it had been ended with Valentinian's post here andmy post on your talk page where you posted false allegations against me but I guess you just want to continue to hurl insults at me and defy the majority here. I am staying out of this until things cool down since I am a) getting pretty tired of this and b) involved in a discplinary dispute with you. I am delighted to see so many new people taking part in this now and I hope that the article will continue to improve because of that. As for your position on Denmark I would suggest that you find a more relevant page and start working on that one instead. In particuar, I think your efforts would be much more beneficial on the Allied Powers page or the article about the occupation of Denmark. MartinDK 18:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Garamundi: post it here, not in the article. Your original text contained factual inaccuracies, or expressed a complicated situation too simply to be considered factual. If you have an improved version, post it in this talk page for consensus before submitting it to the article. And stop the personal attacks ("sock puppet" name calling); you have been warned this will result in a ban on your participation. Finally, my own comment earlier that a paragraph be included about Denmark doesn't constitute "consensus", it's just my opinion. So post your suggested text here.

MartinDK: I disagree that Denmark shouldn't have a short paragraph somewhere in this article, although I do agree that the complex details are better suited for a different article. The debate on the facts may have been ended with Valentinian's contributions, but I see no compelling reason to avoid mentioning anything about Denmark in the context of this article. -Amatulic 19:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If the debate can be ended in the way you suggest then I think that would be great. We actually did discuss on thursday/friday if we should include a section with satelite states where Denmark could be included along with other borderline cases. But I guess that whole debate got lost in the confusion. As long as we discuss it and make sure that Valentinian's information is included in such a paragraph/section then that would be great. The problem is that he won't accept that. He just want to add his own text. But as I said I am stepping back from this for a while until things have cooled down and a true consensus has been reached.

Also, using the fact that I am Danish against me here and on his talk page is considered a personal attack per policy. he could have chosen to discuss this rather than insisting on adding his nonfactual nonsense to the article. MartinDK 19:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Denmark article

• (Amatulic comments: The text below by Garamundi looks like a good start; I'm inserting this comment in front of Garamundi's suggested text, and I'm inserting editing codes below (strikeouts and boldface for deletions and insertions), relying on Wikipedia's change log to record prior versions. My objective here is conciseness by eliminating text that has little value, or seems too POV. I'm also deleting Garamundi's signature because the text below now represents a collaborative effort. Care should be taken to ensure that the text below agrees with the facts cited in the external links included within the text. My edits below are also a "start".) -Amatulic 00:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• (Garamundi comments: Thank you, Amatulic, for your kind comments, your open mind and your commitment to accuracy. I made one change below, reverting the POV expression "had to divert" to non-POV expression "was a major supplier." Denmark made substantial profits from its dealings with Germany, over 3 billion kroner according to the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I am not suggesting that we characterize Denmark's trading as either "profitable" or "forced" but rather in non-POV terms.) I also provided a source for Denmark's adherence to the Anti-Comintern Pact -[Garamundi]
• (Axlq chimes in): Well, I think this is okay, but I think "had to divert" is more accurate because the sources clearly indicate that Danish collaboration was done under duress. Maybe simply saying "diverted" is better. I'm going to re-do this paragraph without the strike-outs; as Amatulic said, let Wikipedia's change log track the changes. BTW, I think the text below is still too long for inclusion in the main article - at the current length it gives undue weight to a collaborator in an article that should be about Axis Powers.) =Axlq 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Somebody has to check casualty numbers. If Frikorps suffered 3900 KIA from 4000 personnel, it doesn't add up. It also contradicts overall casualties Denmark suffered in the war. Could someone post some references to casualty figures and personnel numbers? --Whiskey 15:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the Museum of Danish Resistance about 6000 Danes joined and 2000 died. This link (sadly in Danish....) [4]. confirms this. Even though it is in Danish it is the best source I have been able to find. The people at this museum usually knows what they are talking about. MartinDK 16:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Good! A second question about convicted members of the Frikorps: Were those who participated only between 1941-1943 persecuted? According to the link you gave some/many former members of the Frikorps joined to occupation troops after 1943 which affected to their convictions.--Whiskey 16:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those who joined other units that operated in Denmark were persecuted and sentenced much harder. People who had fought on the Eastern front usually recieved a light prison sentence. People who had signed up to be actively invloved in units that operated inside of Denmark were sentenced much harder, some were executed after the war. It was considered blatant treason to actively help the German occupation forces in Denmark and to be responsible for deaths and material damage inside Denmark. So to make a long story short those who were lucky enough to make it home from the Eastern front were actually better of than those who joined units in Denmark. MartinDK 16:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just tried to make the proposed text below more concise after noticing it had grown. I think it's about ready to insert into the main article, although it may still be a wee bit long. -Amatulic 18:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

The case of Denmark

Main article: Occupation of Denmark

On 9 April 1940, Germany invaded Denmark in violation of the German-Danish treaty of non-aggression signed 31 May 1939. Although Denmark was allowed to remain technically neutral, the Danish government was forced, under threat of bombing, to accept "protection by the Reich" on 9 April 1940 and allow German occupation. Three successive Prime Ministers, Thorvald Stauning, Vilhelm Buhl and Erik Scavenius, maintained this samarbejdspolitik ("cooperation policy") of collaborating with Germany.

• Denmark coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, extending diplomatic recogition to Axis collaborator and puppet regimes and breaking diplomatic relations with the "governments-in-exile" formed by countries occupied by Germany. Denmark broke diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact of 1941.

• In 1941, a Danish military corps, Frikorps Danmark was created at the initiative of the SS and the Danish Nazi Party, to fight alongside the Wehrmacht on Germany's Eastern Front. The government's following statement was widely interpreted as a sanctioning of the corps. Frikorps Danmark was open to members of the Danish Royal Army and those who had completed their service within the last ten years. Between 4,000 and 10,000 Danes joined the Frikorps Danmark, including 77 officers of the Royal Danish Army. An estimated 3,900 Danes died fighting for Germany during the Second World War.

• Denmark also diverted agricultural and industrial products to Germany. Denmark's central bank, Nationalbanken, financed Germany's construction of the Danish part of the Atlantic Wall fortifications at a cost of 5 billion kroner. Six torpedo boats were transferred to Germany in 1941. When martial law was introduced in August 1943 the Danish navy managed to sink most of its ships and hence prevented the Germans from using them.

The protectorate government lasted until 29 August 1943, when the cabinet resigned following a series of anti-German strikes organized by the resistance movement that arose after the SOE established contact with the Danish resistance providing weapons and agents. Several major attacks were launched against companies that collaborated with the Germans. In addition to this the resistance conducted a sabotage campaign against the Danish railroad system which caused great problems for any major transports of soldiers out of Denmark. The Danish resistance was called "second to none" by Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery after the liberation of Denmark.

---

Axis Powers-and only Axis Powers

It seems to me that this debate has now gone beyond any possibility of reasonable compromise. Can I suggest that the whole article is reduced to a hard core of fact. The Axis Powers were Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, with Finland as a co-belligerent. Better to say no more than that. White Guard 23:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The article rightly contains a section on Axis collaborator states. Denmark was an Axis collaborator according to its own government. Please refer to the website of the Danish Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Please confine your comments to the factual accuracy of the Denmark article. You cannot erase history.

Garamundi

Ack, that is pure bull crap. There where collaboraters on the Channel Islands, why not add the UK to the list of Axis collaboraters? TchussBitc 05:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There may have been German sympathizers in the UK, including the British islands occupied by Germany, but the UK was at war with Germany as an Allied Power and was definitely not an Axis collaborator. Denmark, on the other hand, collaborated with Germany on the governmental level, as acknowledged by the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Denmark accepted German "protection," coordinated its foreign policy with Germany, and even signed the Anti-Comintern Pact with Germany. Denmark provided food, coal, and fortifications loans to Germany. Denmark also provided troops in the form of the Denmark Free Corps. Please do not compare Denmark with the UK. It is an insult to the brave people of Britain who suffered millions of casualties to liberate Europe from the Nazis. Any questions, refer to the Royal Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website.

Garamundi

Since when do you care who is insulted? You have done nothing but hurling insults at everyone who disagrees with you (which would be everyone else in case you haven't noticed yet). Fact is you have insulted me personally on a level that you cannot possibly imagine. Read the bottom of this talk page to find out why. Once you have been permanently blocked as a result oif the current discplinary case against you which you haven't replied to yet your edits will be replaced with edits that we can all agree on and not just you. Oh, and I will strongly resist any atttempt to unprotect the article from editing until you have been blocked. MartinDK 16:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Garamundi, I thought I'd said it pretty clearly last time, but I guess I have to repeat myself. The Danish Foreign Office does *not* employ official historians. Aage Trommer has been asked by Gyldendal to write a few pages in a book about Denmark. That does not make his interpretation "official". Knud J.V. Jespersen has been asked to write a different piece, but this is not official policy either. I have explained more than once how the system works in Denmark. Bo Lidegaard *is* an employee of the Foreign Office - unlike Trommer and Jespersen - but that does not make his interpretation official either. So we have at least three interpretations of Denmark during WWII. NONE of them have any official status. The information page on the book you quote clearly states: The chapters in Denmark are written by leading Danish experts (i.e. historians)[5] That does not give any of them an official status. This applies to both Trommer, Jespersen, Lidegaard and at least 10 others that have also written for the Foreign Office. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I have been able to catch all the points given in the extensive debate above. As to the debate itself I see that some less thoughtfull comments have been given by some users, sometimes less thoughtfull comments slip out when discussing a hot topic. But when I only look at the discussion page it does form a basis for an agreement. I can see from the evolution that some parties have made consessions, but others have gone in the trenches. Lets focus on wht we can agree on. As to Danish history I posess little formal knowledge, but I have picked up something her and there. A good article also covers the fringe aspects of a topic and Denmark is a fringe subject of the Axis powers topic. It was somewhere in between. It was occupied and forced to cooperate with the Axis, it was officially Neutral and had some cooperation with the Allies.

MartinDK stated above :"Certainly Vichy acted on its own but in accordance with German wishes. I also think it is safe to say that the Vichy government did so not because it felt pressured to do so as such but because it wanted to. This is where it differs from Denmark. The Danish government was forced to collaborate but did so in a way that made the collaboration virtually worthless for the Germans."

Well I believe the Germans did get something from the Danish cooperation. They got the trade with Denmark, probably not a large contribution to the German economy, but anything counts in war. But the most important in my opinion was that it reduced the number of soldiers the Germans had to have tied up in Denmark. I believe as the case usually is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the points given in the discussion. The Danish governmnet did not want to be occupied and did resist, but on other occations were more cooperative than could be considered apropriate. I don't think we need to strip this article just because we find some differing opinions. The entries will be reinserted by new user anyway. A better solution is to give Denmark its own section on this page were the situation can be explained, both the resistance and the cooperation. Allthough the cooperation will naturally be adressed more thoroughly as this article is about the Axis. The main article Occupation of Denmark should be the place for a comprehensive description of all factors. Inge 09:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats true and if you will look at the bottom of the page you will see that I largely agree with you. If trade is to be considered an advantage of an occupation then the Germans got something out of every piece of land they occupied including Norway so that would be a trvival statement. Furthermore the goods that were transported were often of inferior quality. All in all the occupation of Denmark never really yielded anything other than a way to reach Norway which was also the original goal of the occupation. As far as your statement about troops is concerned I am afraid I have to correct you on that one. The Danish railroad sabotage meant that German troop movements out of Denmark and Norway became ever more difficult mainly in the latter part of the war. This in turn meant that the only "fresh" troops the Germans had left couldn't reach the Western front. This was of huge importance to the duration of the war on the Western front as the Germans had to realize that their troops in Denmark and Norway couldn't assist their final desperate fight. But this is certainly not due to government policies at the time, rather it is due to the work of the Danish and fierce Norwegian resistance who did co-operate on a certain level and who were both dependant on the SOE to support them. MartinDK 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Breaking the article?

The previous discussions of Finland, Bulgaria, Romania and the current discussion of Denmark shows that there is a need for reorganization of the article. There are points one should consider when including the contents to the article:

• The main axis powers were Germany, Italy and Japan.
• The treaty with military provisions which defined the alliance was Tripartite Pact.
• There were a number of smaller widely recognized states which entered to the alliance of Tripartite Pact. (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary) -> Proper presentation should be in the separate article
• There were widely recognized states which entered the war without signing Tripartite Pact. (Finland, Thailand) -> Proper presentation to the separate article
• There were not widely recognized states, puppet states, fighting on the axis side. -> separate article.
• There were military formations from axis occupied areas fighting with the axis -> separate article.

This article should contain the minimal amount of information itself, and link instead to the other articles where the issue is handled properly. --Whiskey 01:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to update people a little about the status of the webpage of the Foreign Ministy. Aage Trommer is a former professor from Odense University, he has never occupied any position within the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry reprints a book on its webpage, sure, but Trommer was simply asked by somebody (most likely the publisher of the Great Danish Encyclopedia, Gyldendal) to write a few pages about WWII. I looked through the list of contributors, most have no connection at all to the ministry, they are historians, not government officials. In Danish historiography, Trommer played an important role in finding and using more source material than others had done before him, and new historians are doing the same, including criticizing Trommer's works. This is only natural. So the webpage shows Aage Trommer's interpretation of events. The Foreign Ministry also displays Prof. Knud J.V. Jespersen's description (2003) [6], and I have explained the interpretation of Bo Lidegaard - whom I believe is the currently leading scholar in the field - as described in the most comprehensive work on Danish foreign policy. The occupation is and will remain controversial and the subject of different interpretations. E.g. regarding the Frikorps Danmark business we know for a fact that the Danish cabinet was not consulted before its creation. We also know that a statement was issued and that this remains controversial. Trommer sees it as a sanctioning, that is his interpretation. When I read the actual text, my own interpretation is that Lidegaard in correct in his analysis that the government made an attempt to avoid sanctioning the corps as such, but that this "spin" was a miserable failure, since the text was preceived as a sanctioning of the corps. What do we know for sure? That the rascals wrote a text that can be read in at least two ways, that the topic of sanctioning the corps as such does not appear in the minutes of the meeting, and that people back then saw the cabinet's actions as a sanctioning of the corps.

I just skimmed the article Allies of World War II and I believe that these two articles should correspond more to each other. The other article only include nations which actively "signed up" for the Allies, and if all nations "friendly" to Germany are included in a list here, that would by definition also include nations internationally recognized as neutral (Sweden and Switzerland). I think people will find this confusing and secondly, I don't believe all these cases can be described accurately in one single article. I think Whiskey has a point in his suggestion about splitting this article up so all these situations can be described with proper space. Btw, the word "samarbejdspolitikken" (= the policy of coorporation/collaboration) was not a word used by the cabinet itself. It was used by its critics and by people after the war. I'm not going to comment on the six torpedo boats in 1941, just saying that this story is pretty long as well. Regarding the National bank, I don't agree with the statement that it provided the Germans with a "loan". The Germans demanded the opening of a an account in 1940 and forced the bank to exchange (worthless) German (military) banknotes 1:1 for Danish crowns. I don't believe "loan" is an accurate description of this situation. It more reminds me of bouncing checks.

I see no reason to refer to the cabinet as "the government of Christian X". While technically true, the Palace throughout his reign only tried to influence political events once (in 1920) and this was extremely close to toppling the monarchy. The monarchy was ultimately saved by Thorvald Stauning and since then, the king stayed out of politics (i.e. returned to the line the Palace had followed since 1901). The cabinet sitting on 1940 was the cabinet of Thorvald Stauning. Christian X was merely a rubber stamp on all laws passed to him, same situation as Frederick IX and Margrethe II. The current cabinet is never referred to as the "Cabinet of Margrethe II", but as the "cabinet of Anders Fogh Rasmussen".

Something which is *not* a minor point is that people should stop referring to others with the word "sockpuppet". It is incredibly annoying to see. I have listed this page on WP:RfC since I'd like to hear the opinions of more editors. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 08:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before I am keeping out of this for the time being. As for the sockpuppet case please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Grungoria for the overwhelming case against him. I could easily file another case for the personal attacks, especially since he is already on a warning but I see no need for it as long as the verdict in the other case is still pending.

I have very good reasons for being offended by his edit. My grandfather was involved in BOPA and his edit completely discredits the work of people like him. But for that very reason I am also excluding myself from any further discussion on this. I will be here to archive the discussion when needed and do other trivial work like adding sources and such. I also have other pending projects here on Wikipedia that I will focus on. Once again I thank you for your involvement. I know that an editor with your background will be able to steer this toward a reasonable solution. Happy editing. MartinDK 19:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There was no intent to offend you or anyone else. If you were offended, I am sorry. I applaud the resistance fighters in BOPA, which started fighting the Germans in 1943, three years after the collaboration began. I wish the Danish government had shown the courage of BOPA, and I wish BOPA had started resting in 1940 instead of 1943. But as the saying goes, better late than never. I hope we can move forward with a factual article. Garamundi

The Communists were outlawed in 1941 and the sabotages started in 1942. KOPA (the beginning of BOPA) conducted sabotage in 1942, along with other Resistance groups. Many groups grew greatly in size after 1943, but that is different matter. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 18:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Garamundi. It may not be entirely obvious to you and many many others and that is OK but organizing a resistance group and getting weapons/explosives is not an easy task. The founders of KOPA had experience from the Spanish Civil War but without weapons and outside support in general it is very hard to do any damage of significance. Specifically it wasn't until the British SOE systematically provided weapons by air drops and parachute agents arrived inside Denmark that the different resistance groups could really perform sabotage and take risks at the they did from 1943 and onwards. The will to resist was there from day 1 among the people who helped found the different groups but it is pretty hard to do much more than setting buildings on fire when you don't have the arms and outside support that was needed.

I support the idea of a short section or paragrapoh about Denmark. As I said we discussed the possibility of a special section for borderline cases before the edit war. But it should be in its own section of the article together with descriptions of how other occupied countries worked together with the Germans and it should provide an equal focus on the resistance movements and their work and will to fight. I think that would be a fair comprimise and if we can work together on that then that would be great. However, such a section or list of countries must include all countries that had people collaborating with the Germans in one form or another. Also I still think that this whole debate belongs in the occupation of Denmark article and not really here because this article is about Axis Powers and not every country that came into contact with the Germans. But majority rules and I certainly want to move on with other much more important parts of the article and that can not really happen until this dispute has been settled. Now, if we can all agree on these terms I will request that the article be unprotected so that we can move forward. Once again welcome to all the new people here. Cheers, MartinDK 07:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't thinking about anyone in particular. I just noticed this word used several times on this page, nothing more, nothing less. On a more general note, the Frikorps Danmark business is of course relevant, but so is the Resistance and the Danish sailors in British service. The objective here must be to determine how best to describe the status of Denmark during WWII, so if we mention Danes serving on one side, it seems only fair to also mention those serving on the other. Otherwise the overall picture will lose accuracy and this cannot be a good thing. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 21:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

As said earlier I am not very learned in Danish history and my impressions are based on bits and pieces from many different sources. I see there are a lot of feelings here and I understand that very much. I think Denmark has been put in an unfair position. This stems from the fact that the Government of Denmark decided it would be best to remain in Denmark even though it was occupied by Germany. History is always judged in hinesight and we can see that the Government put themselves in a position were they were forced to legitimise German policy in Denmark and legitimise the German regime. I have come across the view that because Denmark chose to capitulate and deemed cooperation to be better than occupation that was transferred to society as well. That way collaboration was legitimised in the minds of people as a forced necessity to preserve Danish self determination. One of the greatest mistakes in the hinesigth of history and in the international view on Denmarks WWII legacy was signing the Anti-Comintern pact. I believe the Soviets even wanted Denmark to be treated as a full Axis power after the war. Even though the government issued statements and were promised special contitions by the Germans, the undisputable fact is that the pact was signed. One other mistake was the Frikorps Danmark. The government knew it was going on and issued an ambigous statement the people back then saw as approving its formation, but people now see as a failed attemt to resist it. The members were allowed to leave the Danish army and rejoin it after service. Yes, some army leaders said that would be treason and many of the members were I gather never in the Army, but that is a minor detail when looking from outside.

My point is that if you go by the hearts and minds of the Danes they were very much a part of the Allies, but if you look at the hard legal facts and actions by the legitimate government of Denmark that is what merits Denmarks minor entry in this article. You have many of the same elements in occupation as Norway: Several major Norwegian companies remaining in occupied Norway engaged in extensive trade with Germany (you could say who else were they to trade with, but anyway), many Norwegian civil institutions remained in place such as the police (you could say anarchy would brake out if the police quit, but anyway), some Norwegians even helped in the German deportation of Norwegian jews (some helped others escape, but anyway). I know jews weren't deported from Denmark. My point is that because the legitimate Norwegian government was in London all collaboration could be deemed illegal and any German actions, laws and so on would be illegitimate. Denmark did not have that luxury and was collectively forced to collaborate. It isn't fair, but a high degree of collaboration took place and was sanctioned by the legitimate Danish government. Inge 10:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a general agreement by now that there should be a paragraph and that it should explain both sides of the matter so that certain "facts" are not put there out of context. Also such a paragraph should be out there together with simular paragraphs for the other borderline cases. As far as the goveernment being in exile the only government that was widely recognized after august 1943 was the one in London so from that point on I really do feel that Denmark and Norway should be treated equally in that regard. However, I am very aware of the fact that German brutallity and the resistance was much fiercer in Norway. It is also a known fact that the actual number of Danish resistance fighters tends to be overestimated because so many joined after it became apparent that German collapse was imminemt. MartinDK 11:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In case somebody is interested to my opinion, I think Danes seems to be too hard to themselves here. The responsibility of the democretic government is first and foremost to the citizens, and in that sense Danish government succeeded. If you compare how civilian population in other German occupied nations fared, Denmark manged with a very few civilian casualties. Also when counting holocaust victims, Denmark succeeded to save most of it's Jews, which would have been hard if whole operation was to be executed under the occupation. It is hard to see how the government-in-exile would have improved Allied war effort more than what happened in real life. --Whiskey 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a comprimise and if you look through the discussion you will see that I fought hard to keep Denmark out of the article entirely. But since work on the rest of the article is halted now I believe that a comprimise is the way to go. Also as you note yourself it is hard to ignore that Denmark escaped relatively cheap from the war compared to Holland for example. And whilst I still do not believe that Denmark directly collaborated with the Germans to any significant degree I can understand the point of view that Denmark belongs in a well-balanced short paragraph here with links to Occupation of Denmark. I still strongly oppose any "list of facts" that tries to make Denmark look a collaborator that did nothing to oppose the Germans. MartinDK 13:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is hardly useful to keep pressing Denmark totally out from the article, because there will come new Wikipedians wondering why Denmark isn't included. It is much better to have short section about why Denmark could and couldn't be called axis power. And as a Finn I agree 100% with your opposition to the "list of facts"! --Whiskey 13:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is all about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. By adding Denmark we are able to influence what is written. If not, some other person will eventually come along and write whatever he feels like. It is not unlike the situation with Finland except of course that whole discussion was kept much much more civil and to the point. But by creating our own section for Finland we managed to avoid that someone else will come along and write whatever he wants. His initial plan was to have Norway, Denmark and Spain included as collaborators and have us ignore Croatia's status as a collaborative nation. This has all been reduced to having a debate about a well-balanced section on Denmark. I think that is a pretty good outcome. MartinDK 13:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So if we can agree that this is what should be done I will make a note of it in the fancy to-do box that no one seems to have noticed I put on top of the page ;) hi hi. Cheers, MartinDK 11:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought so too so I have edited the proposal a bit. What do you think? It would be best if we edit that proposal and come to some sort of agreement or a lesser degree of conflict before it is posted on the article page. (By the way: I am not looking to compare Norway and Denmark during WWII. The examples above were given to illustrate that it is somewhat unfair to have Denmark in this article, but that some facts make it legitimate. Since it is agreed to include Denmark the topic is beside the point.) Inge 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that you weren't trying to compare the two ;). I think we should move forward with the special section for borderline cases like Denmark. A well-balanced text should help people who might be in doubt of Denmark's actual role in the war so I support that. I still think, though, that some of the points made about Denmark, specifically the point about Frikorps Danmark applies to many other countries who also had people fighting for the Germans. And in that context the Danish contribution was small and totally insignificant. MartinDK 11:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a bit more info to the proposal otherwise it looks ok to me for now anyways. Let's see what others have to say. MartinDK 11:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK :) Maybe the frikorps bit could be balanced by something like The Frikorps Danmark consisted of X men out of a total of X men recruited from non-German territories. If those numbers could be found they will speak for themselves and the reader can asess the low Danish contribution for themselves. Inge 12:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well... no. I think it would be better to put somewhere the statistics of German recruited foreigners and put a link here. --Whiskey 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I will try to see if I can find some reliable source. Thanks for helping out, I really feel like we are getting somewhere now. MartinDK 12:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)